Merrick
|
Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 04, 2010, 13:14
|
"The local fire brigade worker cited the "sweeping cuts" the service had already endured since 2003 and warned that the new round of cuts due to be imposed would mean more fire engines taken off the road.
"Citing the dramatic increase in the deaths of firefighters, and an increase in deaths as a result of fire, she asked him: "Will you give me a pledge today that when these austere times are over, and you have the money back in the bank or you're balancing your books, that you will look at anything that is cut during this period and go back and get in those fire engines back in the places they are needed to support the public?"
"Cameron refused to make the pledge.
"The direct answer to your question, should we cut things now and go back later and try and restore them later, I think we should be trying to avoid that approach," he said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/03/david-cameron-public-sector-cuts-permanent
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 05, 2010, 00:25
|
Nicely spun. I watched the live coverage of Camerons open Q&A...and I didn't make the conclusion you did on this subject. Fundamentally, Fire Services are largely funded locally...and Cameron made it clear that it is for local government to deliver essential services, review other services and their viability..and certainly work to deliver maximum value for money.
But, lets be honest, political bias is built into the fabric of this board.. it is the most restrictive, stiffled, 1-dimensionalforum for political debate I have encountered. But I still tune in ...so I am just as bad ..
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 05, 2010, 01:40
|
|
Having been previously described as a "Troll"..and I can handle that..are you comfortable posting conveniently alternative views from "the press" to the posts on this board..as "your view"? I assume that posting links to news items mean that you endorse them? or are you just being a provocative, sometime Grauniad reader?
|
Merrick
|
Edited Aug 05, 2010, 12:29
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 05, 2010, 12:29
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Having been previously described as a "Troll"
I wonder why? I mean, someone who slags off a board's personnel and viewpoint, says they fail to understand whhat is said but disagree anyway, why would anyone call you a troll?
It would be a foolish to positively participate in something that could accurately be called
geoffrey_prime wrote: the most restrictive, stiffled, 1-dimensionalforum for political debate
But it would be far more foolish to know that is a bad thing yet still do it.
geoffrey_prime wrote: are you comfortable posting conveniently alternative views from "the press" to the posts on this board.
Let me see. I did it. I didn't decry it or delete it. Go on, have a wild stab in the dark of a guess, do you think I'm comfortable with that?
geoffrey_prime wrote: I assume that posting links to news items mean that you endorse them? or are you just being a provocative, sometime Grauniad reader?
As has already been explained to you, this board is for a certain radical political perspective, and part of its intended and stated function is to post news items that are of relevance to that.
There, I've told you again. Try to understand it this time and it might save you time in future.
|
head-first
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 05, 2010, 12:34
|
The conservative party have never been very generous with public service funding. It shouldn't come as any surprise that they're using the deficit as an excuse to make the kind of long-term cuts they've had wet dreams about.
The welfare state and the NHS were created by a forward-thinking labour party after the Second World War. It's debatable whether the tories would have done the same.
|
The Sea Cat
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 05, 2010, 12:43
|
|
Blatant and repugnant social engineering. The Condems are seeking ways to make strikes illegal, and they are utterly determined to permanently deconstruct all the many postives social advancements made by the left in the last sixty years. It must be not be tolerated and allowed to happen.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 06, 2010, 02:50
|
|
Ok, just so I am clear, what is this "... a certain radical political perspective", then? Because I wasn't aware that there was a declared, formal political positioning of this board. I appreciate I am largely a "lone voice" here...but if I am figuratively a Nazi at a Bar Mitzvah..I agree, it's a total waste of time for everyone...
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 06, 2010, 03:00
|
|
Ok, but do you think if Labour were re-elected (hard to believe I know..), we wouldn't be facing the same level of public sector cuts? I have to say, that I could not see Brown standing in the front-line as Cameron is doing, spelling out the logic, the strategy...and being prepared to engage in F2F discussion with the workers in the Public Sector, who obviously will be impacted by the Governement's actions..
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 06, 2010, 03:02
|
You "missed out" the reponse to..
"Nicely spun. I watched the live coverage of Camerons open Q&A...and I didn't make the conclusion you did on this subject. Fundamentally, Fire Services are largely funded locally...and Cameron made it clear that it is for local government to deliver essential services, review other services and their viability..and certainly work to deliver maximum value for money".
|
head-first
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 06, 2010, 10:31
|
|
Sure, I've no doubt that any party in power at the moment would be committed to saving money and reducing the deficit. I don't know what the labour party would do in this situation, but I share Merrick's indignation at the possibility that public sector cuts won't be reversed when the books are balanced. This policy seems less surprising coming from a tory government than a labour one, however, given their history.
|
